### 62596 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 199 / Monday, October 15, 2012 / Notices

surveys to ensure that Passport Services reaches the appropriate audience and leverages the best research method obtain valid responses. The survey data will cover an estimated 48,000 respondents annually and will include topics covering passport demand, travel, and socio-demographic variables of interest to the United States Department
of State.

Dated: September 27, 2012.

Rachel M. Arndt, Managing Director (Acting), Passport Support Operations, Bureau of Consular Affairs, Department of State.

[FR Doc. 2012–25249 Filed 10–12–12; 8:45 am]

**BILLING CODE 4710–06–P**

**DEPARTMENT OF STATE**

**[Public Notice 8062]**

**Allowing New Investment in Burma**

**AGENCY :**  Bureau of Economic & Business Affairs, Office of Sanctions Policy and Implementation, Department of State.

**SUMMARY :**  The Deputy Secretary of State
has determined that it would be contrary to the national security
interests of the United States to continue to apply the sanction referred to in section 570(b) of the Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs Appropriations Act of 1997 (Pub. L. 104–208) (the ‘‘Act’’),
which authorizes and directs the President to prohibit U.S. persons from making new investment in Burma, if the
President makes certain determinations and certifications to Congress. The President made the required
determinations and certifications and imposed a prohibition on new
investment in Executive Order 13047 (May 20, 1997). He subsequently delegated the waiver authority under Section 570(e) of the Act to the Secretary of State on July 11, 2012, and
the determination described above
constitutes the exercise of such waiver authority. In conjunction with this waiver determination, the Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign
Assets Control issued a General License (No. 17) on July 11, 2012 authorizing new investment in Burma by U.S. persons subject to limitations and requirements set forth therein.

These steps are in response to the recent reforms that have taken place in Burma over the past year. Continued application of the ban on investment would be contrary to U.S. national security interests because it would hinder current U.S. policy to support those in the Burmese government leading important reform efforts. Further reforms would advance longstanding U.S. national security interests such as promoting national reconciliation and democracy in Burma; improving respect for human rights; curtailing the flow from Burma of refugees, illicit narcotics, infectious diseases, and victims of trafficking; and advancing nonproliferation goals. While the Department of State remains concerned about the protection of human rights, corruption, and the role of the military in the Burmese economy, it believes that the participation of U.S. businesses in the Burmese economy will set a model for responsible investment and business operations as well as encourage further change, promote economic development, and contribute to the welfare of the Burmese people.

**DATES :**  Effective Date: July 11, 2012.

**FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT :**  John Marshall Klein, Senior Sanctions Officer, Economic & Business Affairs, Office of Sanctions Policy and Implementation, 202–647–9452.

Dated: September 27, 2012.
Jose W. Fernandez, Assistant Secretary for Economic and Business Affairs, Department of State.

[FR Doc. 2012–25252 Filed 10–12–12; 8:45 am]

**BILLING CODE 4710–07–P**

**DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION**

**Office of the Secretary of Transportation** 

**Interim Guidance on State Freight Plans and State Freight Advisory** 
**Committees**

**AGENCY :**  Office of the Secretary of Transportation (OST), U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Federal Highway Administration (FHWA),
Federal Motor Carriers Administration (FMCSA) Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Maritime Administration (MARAD), Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHSMA), Research and Innovative Technology Administration (RITA), St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation (SLSDC).

**ACTION :**  Notice of Interim Guidance and Request for Comments.

**SUMMARY :**  On July 6, 2012, the President signed into law Public Law 112–141, the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP–21). Section 1118 of MAP–21 directs the Secretary of Transportation to encourage each State to develop a comprehensive State Freight Plan that outlines immediate and long-range plans for freight-related transportation investments. Section 1117 of MAP–21 directs the Secretary to encourage each State to establish a State Freight Advisory Committee. The Department of Transportation is issuing this Notice to provide Interim Guidance on both State Freight Plans and State Freight Advisory Committees. It encourages States to develop State Freight Plans and provides guidance to States on the required elements of a State Freight Plan and information on funding and on the relationship of State Freight Plans to other provisions of MAP–21. It encourages States to develop State Freight Advisory Committees as part of the process for developing a State Freight Plan. The Department requests public comments on all aspects of this Interim Guidance.

**DATES :**  All public comments must be received by November 15, 2012.

**ADDRESSES :**  You may send comments identified by Docket Number DOT– OST–2012–0168 using any of the following methods:

Government-wide rulemaking Web site: http://www.regulations.gov and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically.

Mail: Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington,

DC 20590–0001. Fax 1–202–493–2251.

Courier: commercial delivery service, such as, but not limited to the following—Federal Express or United Parcel Service, addressed to Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

Hand Delivery: Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

The Department will post all comments received, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information. If you mail or hand deliver your comments and want the Department to acknowledge receipt of your comments, include with your comments a pre-addressed, stamped postcard on which the docket number appears. We will stamp the date on the postcard and mail it to you.

Docket: To read background documents or comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov or to Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search
the electronic form of all comments


### 62597 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 199 / Monday, October 15, 2012 / Notices

received in any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment if submitted on behalf of an association, a business, a labor union, etc.). You may review the Department’s complete Privacy Act statement in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477–78), or you may visit http://www.dot.gov/privacy.html.

This Interim Guidance will also be posted on the Department’s MAP–21 Web site ( www.dot.gov/map21 ).

**FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT :**  Mr. Jack Wells, Chief Economist, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. Telephone Number (202) 366–
9224 or Email jack.wells@dot.gov.

**SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION :** 

Table of Contents

I. Background and Program Purpose II. Policy III. Funding IV. Contents of State Freight Plans V. The State Freight Planning Process VI. Data and Analytical Resources for State Freight Planning VII. Request for Comments

I. Background and Program Purpose

The purpose of this document is to provide guidance on the implementation of Section 1118 (State Freight Plans) and Section 1117 (State Freight Advisory Committees) of the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP–21). Section 1118 directs the Secretary of Transportation to encourage States to develop freight plans that are comprehensive and that include both immediate and long-term freight planning activities and
investments. Section 1117 directs the Secretary to encourage each State to establish a State Freight Advisory Committee consisting of a representative cross-section of public and private freight stakeholders. Section 1118 specifies certain minimum contents for State Freight Plans, and states that such a plan may be developed separate from or be incorporated into the statewide strategic long-range transportation plan required by section 135 of title 23,
United States Code.

Section 1116 of MAP–21 (Prioritization of Projects to Improve Freight Movement) authorizes the Secretary to increase the Federal share payable for any project to 95 percent for projects on the Interstate System and 90 percent for any other project if the Secretary certifies that the project:

• Demonstrates the improvement made by the project to the efficient movement of freight (including making progress on freight performance measures established under MAP–21)
and

• Is identified in a State Freight Plan developed pursuant to section 1118.

The Federal Highway Administration will be issuing separate guidance on the implementation of Section 1116. One purpose of this guidance is to inform States of the freight planning process they must undertake to qualify for the freight prioritization provisions of

Section 1116.

II. Policy

The U.S. Department of Transportation strongly encourages all States to develop State Freight Plans. The Department believes that freight transportation, because its effects are often regional or national in scope, and includes freight providers that own and operate private infrastructure, has often
been more difficult for States to incorporate into their planning process than has passenger transportation, and that accordingly infrastructure investments and other State policy initiatives related to freight transportation have often received lessfunding and attention than passengerrelated initiatives. Because freight transportation is critical to the economic vitality of the United States, renewed attention to safe and efficient freight transportation can have a positive effect on the economic growth of the United

States.

State Freight Plans can identify freight transportation facilities that are critical to each State’s economic growth and give appropriate priority to investments in such facilities. In doing so, such Plans can enhance economic growth at both the State and National level, thus enhancing the Nation’s economic competitiveness. State Freight Plans can also help to guide investments and other policies that will help to achieve the Department’s other strategic goals, including safety, state of good repair, livability, and environmental sustainability. State Freight Plans can also identify freight transportation facilities that are critical to export movements and, by directing resources toward improving those facilities, assist the United States in meeting the goals of the President’s National Export

Initiative.

The State Freight Plan may be developed separate from or incorporated into the statewide strategic long-range transportation plan required by section 135 of title 23, United States Code. If the State Freight Plan is separate from the statewide strategic long-range transportation plan, each plan should show how the findings of the State Freight Plan are incorporated into the statewide strategic long-range transportation plan. If the two plans arecombined, the statewide strategic longrange transportation plan should include a separate section focused on freight transportation, and must include the elements specified in section 1118. Other State transportation plans, such as State Rail Plans, are required by statute
to be coordinated with section 135 of title 23, and as a consequence the freight component of those plans should be incorporated into the State Freight Planto ensure a comprehensive and systemwide planning approach.

The Department also strongly encourages all States to establish State Freight Advisory Committees. Such Advisory Committees are an important part of the process needed to develop a thorough State Freight Plan. Bringing together the perspectives and knowledge of public and private partners, including shippers, carriers,
and infrastructure owners and operators, is important to developing a quality State Freight Plan.

The Department will be developing a multimodal National Freight Strategic
Plan in accordance with the requirements of Section 1115 of MAP– 21, and intends to rely significantly on the freight plans prepared by the States.

III. Funding

Authorization level under MAP–21: There is no formula or discretionary funding specifically associated with State Freight Plans or State Freight Advisory Committees.

States may use funding allocated under the Surface Transportation Program (23 U.S.C. 133) for developing State Freight Plans, as well as funding under the State Planning and Research Program (23 U.S.C. 505). They may also use carryover balances from National Highway System funds authorized under SAFETEA–LU (23 U.S.C. 103(b)(6)(E) as in effect on the day before enactment of MAP–21) that can be used for transportation planning in
accordance with 23 U.S.C. 134 and 135 (23 U.S.C. 103 was amended by MAP– 21 section 1104, which eliminated the National Highway System Program under section 103, and hence eliminated the funding for planning under section 103 as amended).

IV. Contents of State Freight Plans

Section 1118 of MAP–21 requires that a State Freight Plan developed pursuant to Section 1118 include, at a minimum, the following elements:

• An identification of significant freight system trends, needs, and issues with respect to the State;


### 62598 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 199 / Monday, October 15, 2012 / Notices

• A description of the freight policies, strategies, and performance measures that will guide the freight-related transportation investment decisions of the State;

• A description of how the plan will improve the ability of the State to meet the national freight goals established under section 167 of title 23, United States Code;

• Evidence of consideration of innovative technologies and operational strategies, including intelligent transportation systems, that improve the safety and efficiency of freight

movement;

• In the case of routes on which travel by heavy vehicles (including mining, agricultural, energy cargo or equipment, and timber vehicles) is projected to substantially deteriorate the condition of roadways, a description of improvements that may be required to reduce or impede the deterioration; and

• An inventory of facilities with freight mobility issues, such as truck bottlenecks, within the State, and a description of the strategies the State is employing to address those freight mobility issues.

In addition to these minimum elements required by section 1118, the Department has provided additional
recommended elements based on what
States have found useful to include in freight plans that have already been prepared, as well as on consistency with the requirements for the National Freight Strategic Plan, found in 23 U.S.C 167(f).

State Freight Plans may be organized in any structure that works best for individual States, as long as they cover the required elements; however, in order to aid States in addressing the required criteria, and to facilitate the incorporation of analysis from the State Freight Plans into the National Freight Strategic Plan, as well as to aid in conceptualizing the detailed issues surrounding robust freight planning, DOT is suggesting the following
structure as a recommended model for
states to follow.

1. Strategic Goals

As specified in section 1118, a State Freight Plan must include a description of how the plan will improve the ability of the State to meet the national freight goals established under 23 U.S.C. 167. The following is a summary of the goals of the National Freight Policy
established in 23 U.S.C. 167:

• Improving the contribution of the freight transportation system to economic efficiency, productivity, and competitiveness; • Reducing congestion on the freight transportation system;

• Improving the safety, security, and resilience of the freight transportation system;

• Improving the state of good repair of the freight transportation system;

• Using advanced technology, performance management, innovation, competition, and accountability in operating and maintaining the freight transportation system;

• Reducing adverse environmental and community impacts of the freight transportation system. The Department recommends that each State Freight Plan also include a discussion of the State’s strategic goals for freight transportation. These goals would include the goals of the National Freight Policy summarized above, but States may also add other strategic goals. The Department recommends that State Freight Plans indicate which goals are most important to the State.

2. The Economic Context of Freight Transportation Planning

The Department recommends that each State Freight Plan include a discussion of the role that freight transportation plays in the State’s overall economy. This section would identify what industries are most important to the State, and what supply chains (including the transportation modes that support them) are critical to the State’s industries. In particular, it would indicate what supply chains involving the State are important to exports, whether the exports of that
State or of other States.

3. Freight Policies, Strategies, and

Institutions

As specified in section 1118, a State Freight Plan must include a discussion of the State’s freight policies andstrategies that will guide the freightrelated transportation investment decisions of the State. The Department
recommends that this section also discuss how these freight policies andstrategies will guide not just freightrelated transportation investment decisions of the State, but also the broader freight improvement strategy of the State, including operational strategies and policy changes. The Department recommends that this
discussion also:

• Include the State’s grant and loan programs that are available to pay for freight-related transportation infrastructure;

• Identify the State’s freight-relatedinstitutions, including transportationrelated infrastructure owners and regulatory authorities, such as the State DOT, port authorities, toll roads, and bridge and tunnel authorities;

• Explain the governance structures and funding mechanisms for such authorities (e.g., whether the authorities are controlled by the governor or are independent, and whether the authority has a dedicated source of revenue);

• Identify private transportation infrastructure owners, such as railroads, terminals, pipelines, and freight transfer facilities;

• Identify statutory and constitutional constraints on freight-related investments and policies, such as prohibitions on spending State funds for certain kinds of freight infrastructure;

• Discuss regional freight planning
activities in which the State participates, such as planning for key multi-state freight corridors, multi-state metropolitan areas, or for other regional groups of States; and

• Set out the State’s priorities in freight transportation infrastructure development.

4. State Freight Transportation Assets

As specified in section 1118, a State Freight Plan must include an inventory of facilities with freight mobility issues. The Department recommends that this inventory also include a complete inventory of the State’s freight transportation assets. This would include a description of the State’s transportation infrastructure in all freight-carrying modes, the warehousing
and intermodal facilities located in the State, and the freight gateways and corridors that are located in or that pass through the State. MAP–21 places particular emphasis on transportation
infrastructure that is used to serve areas of the State that are significant for energy development, mining, agriculture, and timber production, and the Department recommends that the State Freight Plan inventory note particularly routes that are used to move equipment for these productive
activities into those areas and for moving the output of those productive
activities out of those areas.

5. The Conditions and Performance of the State’s Freight Transportation System

As specified in section 1118, a State Freight Plan must include the performance measures that will guide the freight-related transportation
investment decisions of the State. The Department recommends that this discussion also include an analysis of the conditions and performance of the State’s freight transportation system. This analysis would include the
identification of bottlenecks in the


### 62599 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 199 / Monday, October 15, 2012 / Notices

freight transportation system that cause delays and unreliability in freight movements, as well as other specific locations that are in a poor state of good repair, create safety hazards, or create other performance problems. The National Freight Strategic Plan also is required to include an analysis of the conditions and performance of the national freight system, and when those measures of freight conditions and performance are established, the Department recommends that State Freight Plans include those measures. Until those measures are established, however, the Department recommends
that States use the measures of condition and performance that they
consider to be most reasonable and appropriate. In general, the Department
recommends that measures of conditions and performance reflect the State’s freight transportation goals—for each goal, there would be at least one measure of condition or performance that indicates how well the freight transportation system is doing in achieving that goal.

The Department recommends that
States use measures of conditions of transportation infrastructure that reflect the quality of service that this infrastructure provides to users of that infrastructure and to the general public. Similarly, measures of the performance of the freight transportation system would reflect the quality of freight service provided to freight shippers and the impact of the freight transportation system on the general public. Measures of conditions and performance would reflect outcomes that are directly important to the system’s users and to the general public (for example, reductions in crashes, fatalities, and injuries; reduced delay and congestion; and reduced vehicle operating costs); The Department recommends that States try to avoid using measures that are not of direct importance to users and the general public (for example, miles of track or number of bridges inspected each year).

6. Freight Forecast

Consistent with one of the required elements of the National Freight Strategic Plan, which must be developed in consultation with the States, the Department recommends that State Freight Plans include a 20-year forecast of freight transportation demands, broken down by mode of transportation and commodity classification, and showing demands for transportation of freight coming into the State, outbound from the State, passing through the State between outside origin and destination points, and moving intrastate between origin and destination points within the State. The freight forecast could draw upon the forecast prepared by the Federal Highway Administration’s (FHWA) Office of Freight Management and Operations and on the Federal AviationAdministration’s national and airportlevel forecasts of air cargo. The FHWA forecast includes projected tonnage for each mode—truck, rail, air (air and truck), water, and pipeline.

7. Overview of Trends, Needs, and

Issues

As specified in section 1118, a State Freight Plan must identify significant freight system trends, needs, and issues with respect to the State. The Department recommends that this discussion also include how emerging
trends make those needs and issues of greater significance, or how these trends
affect how those needs and issues can
be addressed.

8. Strengths and Problems of the State’s Freight Transportation System

The Department recommends that a State Freight Plan include an analysis of the strengths of the State’s freight system that it wishes to preserve and the problems that it wishes to solve. This analysis would show what the strengths of the State’s freight system are that the State wishes to build upon; it would also show in what respects the State’s freight system does not meet the State’s goals, and indicate which problems are most important for the State to address. Some of these might include problems that the State expects to develop in the future as a result of increasing demand for freight transportation or other trends that the State is anticipating.

9. The State’s Decision-Making Process

The Department recommends that a State Freight Plan include a discussion of the State’s decision-making process on freight transportation improvements, including how the State conducted outreach to stakeholders and the public and how the State prioritized the various strategies, projects, and policy changes it considered. This discussion
would show how the State coordinated improvements to different modes of transportation in order to achieve its goals in the most cost-effective way. It would also discuss ways in which the
State coordinated with other States in regional freight planning efforts, and with metropolitan areas within the State that have done freight planning.

The Department encourages States to conduct economic analysis as part of the State Freight Plan, including analyses of
benefits and costs of various improvements that they are considering. If economic analysis has been conducted, the results of that analysis should be reported in this portion of the State Freight Plan. The discussion would show how the State compared alternative approaches to achieving the same goal. As specified in section 1118,
the discussion must also show evidence of consideration of operational strategies (such as congestion pricing) or innovative technologies (such as use of intelligent transportation systems (ITS)) that improve the safety and efficiency of freight movement. If an economic analysis is provided, it would be particularly useful to estimate benefits
and costs of each alternative considered.

10. The State’s Freight Improvement Strategy

As specified in section 1118, a State Freight Plan must include a description of the strategies the State is employing to address freight mobility issues. The Department recommends that this description also include a presentation of the State’s complete freight improvement strategy, with different improvements ranked in order of priority (or grouped into higher and lower priority groups). This presentation of the State’s freight improvement strategy would include an analysis of how each improvement will advance the State’s strategic goals, relating to:

• Capital investments;

• Operational improvements, such as congestion pricing and travel demand management;

• Policy changes, including performance management, competition, and accountability initiatives; and

• Expanded use of ITS and other innovative technologies. The strategy would also include:

• An analysis of how proposed improvements will affect specific supply chains and industries that have been identified as important to the State in Section 2;

• Because MAP–21 places particular emphasis on infrastructure that is used for transporting mining, agricultural, energy, and timber equipment and products, a discussion of how those freight transportation routes would be affected (and in particular how the strategy would impede the deterioration
in the condition of infrastructure on those routes);

• An analysis of the improvements in outcomes that are expected to result from the proposed freight improvements;

• A discussion of how the freight plan relates to other transportation


### 62600 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 199 / Monday, October 15, 2012 / Notices

plans, such as a state rail plan, a longrange statewide transportation plan, or a metropolitan area freight plan; and A discussion of how the State’s Freight Improvement Strategy coordinates with plans of other adjacent States, including groups of States that work together to plan for freight transportation along keymulti-state freight corridors, in multistate metropolitan areas, or through other regional groupings.

11. Implementation Plan

Finally, the Department recommends that a State Freight Plan include a comprehensive implementation plan, showing both short-term and long-term strategies, and including an approximate time schedule for each proposed freight improvement. This implementation plan would include an analysis of which capital improvements have the potential to generate a revenue stream, and hence which projects have the potential to be funded with loans (repaid from the revenue stream) rather than solely through grants or general
funds. The Plan would include a funding plan, showing how each project will be funded, including those funded by grants, loans, and public-private partnerships. The Plan would discuss the State’s proposed partnerships with private infrastructure owners, such as railroads, terminal operators, and pipeline companies. Finally, the Plan would discuss how the State proposes to work with adjacent States on projects that cross State lines, or on freight corridors that cross State lines (even if the project itself is all in one State).

V. The State Freight Planning Process

The Department recommends that States use a collaborative process for freight planning that involves all of the relevant stakeholders affected by the freight transportation system. These
stakeholders would include owners of freight transportation infrastructure (both public and private); carriers operating on publicly-owned freight infrastructure; shippers and freight forwarders; representatives of employees of these stakeholders; State, local, and tribal governments; and the general public. Stakeholders might be
domiciled both inside the State and
outside of the State.

States are strongly encouraged to establish State Freight Advisory
Committees to facilitate this collaborative process. As specified in section 1117 of MAP–21, State Freight Advisory Committees should include representatives of a cross-section of public and private sector experts and stakeholders. These might include representatives of: • The transportation department of the State;

• Metropolitan planning organizations, councils of government, regional councils, and other regional and planning organizations;

• Local and tribal governments;

• Independent transportation authorities, such as seaport and airport authorities, toll highway authorities, and bridge and tunnel authorities;

• Private infrastructure owners, such as railroads and pipelines;

• Carriers, including carriers operating on their own infrastructureand carriers operating on publiclyowned infrastructure;

• Shippers and freight forwarders;

• Freight-related associations;

• Organizations representing the freight industry workforce;

• Environmental, safety, and community organizations; and

• Independent transportation experts, including academic specialists and
consultants.

State Freight Advisory Committees should be charged with

• Advising the State on freight-related priorities, issues, projects, and funding needs;

• Serving as a forum for discussion of State decisions affecting freight transportation;

• Communicating and coordinating regional priorities with other organizations;

• Promoting the sharing of information between the private and public sectors on freight issues; and

• Participating in the development of the State’s Freight Plan.

VI. Data and Analytical Resources for State Freight Planning

The modal administrations of the U.S. Department of Transportation and other departments in the U.S. Government can provide a wide range of data and analysis to assist States in the freight planning process. The following is a
series of links to internet Web sites that provide useful data and analysis

resources: General Data and Analysis Sources on Freight
Commodity Flow Survey: http://www.bts

.gov/publications/commodity

_ flow

_ survey/ Data Sources Related to Freight

Transportation: http://www.ops. fhwa.dot.gov/freight/freight

_ analysis/
data

_ sources/index.htm Freight Analysis Framework: http://

www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/freight/ freight

_ analysis/faf/index.htm Freight Performance Measures: http://

www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/freight/freight

_ analysis/travel

_ time.htm Quick Response Freight Manual: http://

www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/freight/ publications/qrfm2/index.htm Maritime Statistics

USA Trade Online (The Official Source for

U.S. Merchandise Trade Data), U.S. Census

Bureau: https://www.usatradeonline.gov/ Navigation Data Center, Waterborne

Commerce Statistics Center, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers: http:// www.ndc.iwr.usace.army.mil/wcsc/
wcsc.htm Navigation Data Center, Vessel Entrances and

Clearances, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers: http://www.ndc.iwr.usace.army.mil/data/
dataclen.htm Maritime Statistics, U.S. Maritime

Administration: http://www.marad.dot. gov/library

_landing

_ page/data

_ and

_ statistics/Data

_ and

_ Statistics.htm Marview Statistics, U.S. Maritime

Administration: www.marview.gov/
Rail Freight Resources and Statistics
The Preliminary National Rail Plan: http://

www.fra.dot.gov/Downloads/RailPlan Prelim10-15.pdf The National Rail Plan Progress Report:

http://www.fra.dot.gov/downloads/

NRP

_ Sept2010

_ WEB.pdf The Proposed State Rail Plan Guidance:

http://www.fra.dot.gov/rpd/passenger/ fp

_Proposed

_ State

_Rail

_Plan

_ Guidance.shtml Comparative Evaluation of Rail and Truck

Fuel Efficiency on Competitive Corridors: http://www.fra.dot.gov/Downloads/ Comparative

_Evaluation

_Rail

_ Truck

_ Fuel

_Efficiency.pdf
Discussion of the confidential Carload

Waybill Sample and State access: http:// www.stb.dot.gov/stb/industry/

econ

_ waybill.html National Transportation Atlas Database

includes FRA rail network: http:// www.bts.gov/publications/
national

_ transportation

_ atlas

_ database/ Online highway rail grade crossing

investment analysis tool: http:// gradedec.fra.dot.gov/ Interactive mapping application that allows

users to view aspects of railroad
infrastructure: http://fragis.frasafety.net/ GISFRASafety/default.aspx
Air Freight Statistics
FAA Air Cargo forecasts: http://www.faa.gov/

about/office

_ org/headquarters

_ offices/apl/

aviation

_ forecasts/aerospace

_ forecasts/
2012–2032/

Click on ‘‘Forecast Tables, US Commercial and Foreign Flag Carriers, Tables 5–23.’’ Cargo forecasts are Tables 19 and 20.

VII. Request for Comments

DOT invites interested parties to submit comments on any aspect of the Department’s implementation of MAP– 21 requirements for State Freight Plans or State Freight Advisory Committees. The Department will consider these comments as it continues to implement the freight provisions of the law. The instructions for submitting comments
can be found in the Addresses section
above. Late-filed comments will be considered to the extent practicable.


### 62601 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 199 / Monday, October 15, 2012 / Notices

Issued in Washington, DC, on October 5,

2012. Ray LaHood,
Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2012–25261 Filed 10–12–12; 8:45 am]

**BILLING CODE P**

**DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION**

**Federal Motor Carrier Safety**
**Administration**

**Sunshine Act Meetings; Unified Carrier Registration Plan Board of Directors** 

**AGENCY :**  Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

**ACTION :**  Notice of Unified Carrier Registration Plan Board of Directors Meeting.

**TIME AND DATE :**  The meeting will be held on October 25, 2012, from 12:00 noon to 3:00 p.m., Eastern Standard Time.

**PLACE :**  This meeting will be open to the public via conference call. Any interested person may call 1–877–820– 7831, passcode, 908048 to listen and participate in this meeting.

**STATUS :**  Open to the public.

**MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED :**  The Unified Carrier Registration Plan Board of Directors (the Board) will continue its work in developing and implementing the Unified Carrier Registration Plan and Agreement and to that end, may consider matters properly before the
Board.

**FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT :**  Mr. Avelino Gutierrez, Chair, Unified Carrier Registration Board of Directors at (505) 827–4565.

Issued on: September 21, 2012.
Larry W. Minor, Associate Administrator, Office of Policy, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration.

[FR Doc. 2012–25350 Filed 10–11–12; 11:15 am]

**BILLING CODE 4910–EX–P**

**DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION**

**Surface Transportation Board**

**[Docket Nos. NOR 38302S and NOR 38376S]**

**United States Department of Energy and United States Department of** 
**Defense v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Company, et al. and Aberdeen &**  **Rockfish Railroad Company, et al.**

**AGENCY :**  Surface Transportation Board,

DOT.

**ACTION :**  Notice of Proposed Settlement Agreement, Issuance of Procedural
Schedule. **SUMMARY :**  On September 4, 2012, United States Department of Energy and the United States Department of Defense (the Government) and BNSF Railway Company (BNSF) (collectively Movants), filed a motion requesting approval of an agreement that would settle these rate reasonableness disputes as between them only. The Board is adopting a procedural schedule for filing comments and replies addressing their proposed settlement agreement. (As detailed below, these proceedings involve disputes among a number of different entities, including other
railroad carriers besides BNSF. This settlement applies only to the parties submitting the instant agreement and does not resolve these proceedings in their entirety.)

**DATES :**  Comments are due by November 29, 2012. Reply comments are due by December 31, 2012.

**ADDRESSES :**  Comments and replies may
be submitted either via the Board’s efiling format or in the traditional paper format. Any person using e-filing should
attach a document and otherwisecomply with the instructions at the EFILING link on the Board’s Web site, at http://www.stb.dot.gov. Any person submitting a filing in the traditional paper format should send an original and 10 copies to: Surface Transportation Board, Attn: Docket No. NOR 38302S, et al., 395 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20423–0001. Copies of written comments and replies will be available for viewing and self-copying at the Board’s Public Docket Room, Room 131, and will be posted to the Board’s Web site. In addition, send one copy of comments to each of the following: (1) Stephen C. Skubel, Room 6H087, U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20585; (2) Terrance A. Spann, U.S. Department of Defense, 9275 Gunston Road, Suite 1300, Fort Belvoir, VA 22060; and (3) Jill K. Mulligan, BNSF Railway Company, 2500 Lou Menk Drive, AOB–3, Fort Worth, TX 76131.

**FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT :**  Marc Lerner, (202) 245–0390. [Assistance for the hearing impaired is available through the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at: 1– 800–877–8339.]

**SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION :**  In March 1981, the Government filed these complaints against 21 major railroads (the Railroad Defendants) under section 229 of the Staggers Rail Act of 1980, Public Law 96–448, 94 Stat. 1895. The Government sought reparations and a rate prescription relating to the nationwide movement of spent nuclear fuel, other high level radioactive wastes, and the empty containers (casks) and
buffer and escort cars used for their movement (radioactive materials). In 1986, the Board’s predecessor, the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC),
found that the Railroad Defendants were engaging in an unreasonable practice, imposing substantial and unwarranted cost additives—above and beyond the regular train service rates—in an effort to avoid transporting these radioactive materials. The ICC canceled the existing rates and cost additives, prescribed new rates, and awarded reparations. See
Commonwealth Edison Co. v. Aberdeen & Rockfish R.R., 2 I.C.C.2d 642 (1986). The United States Court of Appeals for
the D.C. Circuit set aside and remanded
the decision. See Union Pacific R.R. v. ICC, 867 F.2d 646 (D.C. Cir. 1989). On remand, the ICC ruled that the
movement of these radioactive materials for reprocessing was subject to the rate cap on recyclables set out in former 49 U.S.C. 10731(e) and directed the parties to file revenue-to-variable cost (R/VC) evidence to resolve the remaining reparations and rate prescription issues. See United States Department of Energy

v. Baltimore & Ohio R.R., 10 I.C.C.2d 112 (1994). While judicial review was pending, Congress enacted the ICC Termination Act of 1995, Public Law 104–88, 109 Stat. 803, which repealed § 10731 in its entirety and directed that all proceedings pending under the repealed section be terminated.

The Railroad Defendants petitioned the Board to dismiss the complaints in 1996, and, in 1997, they invited the Government to explore the possibility of settling the complaints. Discussions
commenced on a nationwide settlement covering all of the Railroad Defendants that might carry radioactive materials. The Government subsequently chose to negotiate only with Union Pacific Railroad Company (UP), the destination
carrier for most of the movements of
radioactive materials that were to be covered by the nationwide settlement, after the parties concluded that there were potential antitrust problems in negotiating with the Railroad Defendants as a group. On September 15, 2004, the Government and UP filed a motion seeking approval under 49 U.S.C. 10704 of a settlement agreement (the UP Agreement) they had negotiated to resolve these complaints as between them only. The Board, in a decision served in these proceedings on August 2, 2005: (1) Approved the UP Agreement; (2) dismissed UP as a party to these proceedings; (3) relieved UP of any obligation to participate in these or related proceedings involving claims against connecting railroad defendants